Talk:Estado Novo (Portugal)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• AmericoThomaz.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Not Fascist, nor Totalitarian

The sources provided in the info-box for proof that it is "fascist" and "totalitarian" do not line up. The source for "fascist" simply states that Italy had a corporatist system and that a similar system existed in Portugal. The source that it was a totalitarian regime does not mention the word "totalitarian" anywhere. In the sections above there is an extensive list of citations noting that the Estado Novo is not fascist. As the citations for "fascist" and "totalitarian" do not exactly demonstrate that Portugal was fascist or totalitarian, I will be removing them unless there is anything to replace them with. Horarum (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

They have also been adding it to List of totalitarian regimes see Special:Diff/1151846717/1152254428. This looks like a strained attempt with obscure sources, it's not mainstream or common knowledge. -- GreenC 03:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I was not aware that this discussion was taking place - In fact it looks more recent than when I first added the Estado novo to the “list of totalitarian regimes” article for the first time. I will not be reverting your edit on the page until this discussion concludes The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

See also above Talk:Estado_Novo_(Portugal)#Estado_Novo_is_not... for previous discussions. -- GreenC 03:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

..and above Talk:Estado_Novo_(Portugal)#Estado_Novo_is_not_considered_fascist_by_the_academia. -- GreenC 03:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Fascism

Back in 2019 there was an RfC on whether the Estado Novo should be considered "fascist" or not, no consensus was reached, it was decided that the status quo would be maintained (that the Estado Novo was fascist):

[1]

[2]

The user who initiated the discussion also failed to gain consensus for these changes in December 2020:

[3]

There is indeed controversy in academia over whether it was a fascist regime or not, but per the discussions above, it should be labeled "fascist" here, until there is consensus for a change. -- 2804:248:FBF7:1900:35EB:51C9:728:5D26 (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

That looks pretty clear it should be categorized fascist, based on current consensus. I don't want to get further involved and won't dispute the addition of the category - but give any others a few days to respond. Ping me if needed I am removing from watchlist. -- GreenC 03:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Many editors and myself have provided in this talk page an abundant, well organized list, of reputable sources that are very clear in not categorizing the Estado Novo as a fascist regime. The sources in that list are from reputed Sholars that have specifically studied the topic of fascism or Salazar and the Estado Novo. Until now I have not seen in this discussion a similar list of works saying the opposite. Wikipedia follows a strict policy of using reliable sources to establish the information presented in its articles. The content is not determined by the preferences or opinions of its editors through a popular vote, but rather by the quality and verifiability of the sources cited. It is therefore important to examine the sources that argue the Estado Novo was fascist and compare them with the works by scholars previously mentioned, such as Stanley G. Payne, Tom Gallagher, Filipe Ribeiro de Meneses, Renzo De Felice, Robert Paxton, etc.. who argue that the Estado Novo was not fascist. That is the work that needs to be done. So, anyone wanting to include a label, as if there is consensus on the label, will have to provide a list of sources that is big and relevant enough to prove that Stanley G. Payne, Tom Gallagher, Filipe Ribeiro de Meneses, Renzo De Felice, Robert Paxton, etc.. are sustaining a minority point of view. J Pratas (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Many sources that categorize the Estado Novo as fascist were provided in the discussion. The burden is on you to support your proposed changes. Also, you were caught cherrypicking sources, omitting content which might not support your point of view, both in this discussion, and in another one about Franco. 2804:248:FBF7:1900:FCDC:6F25:B1AC:E55E (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The list of the most notable biographers who have written about António de Oliveira Salazar, include:

• Filipe Ribeiro de Meneses: Who wrote the book "Salazar: A Political Biography" (2009). Meneses argues that Salazar consistently distanced himself from fascism and Nazism, promoting an alternative conservative authoritarianism rooted in Catholic social doctrine.
• Tom Gallagher: A Scottish historian and political scientist who authored "Salazar: The Dictator Who Refused to Die" (2020). Gallagher's work delves into Salazar's political thought and distinguishes his regime from fascism. Gallagher acknowledges that while Salazar's Estado Novo regime shared some characteristics with fascist regimes, Salazar explicitly rejected fascist and Nazi labels, asserting his commitment to a distinct Portuguese form of authoritarianism.
• Hugh Kay: A biographer known for his work on Salazar, particularly his book "Salazar and Modern Portugal" (1970). Kay's analysis offers insights into Salazar's governing style and highlights the complexities of his ideology claiming that Salazar consistently distanced himself from fascism and Nazism, advocating for a conservative authoritarianism with a focus on traditional values and strong central governance.

It is evident throughout these biographies that Salazar consistently distanced himself from fascist and Nazi ideologies, instead promoting a distinct form of conservative authoritarianism. This is not cherry picking. This is to pick the major academic works published on Salazar, the founder and ruler of the Estado Novo for almost 40 years. J Pratas (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

You tend to cherrypick by ignoring or omitting content from your sources which might not support your POV, like you did when you with Rita Almeida de Carvalho, when she said that the "fascist nature" of the Estado Novo was a "common assumption".

And please, don't WP:BLUDGEON this page, you have already tried to gain consensus for your proposed change and failed. 2804:248:FB54:3500:989:C541:7B7:FC9A (talk) 05:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

So I provide three key biographies on Salazar and you instead of commenting the sources or providing other sources you prefer a personal attack?

You should read carefully the work from Rita Carvalho before jumping into conclusions. When the author refers to the "common assumption," it is essential to understand that she is primarily addressing the popular belief held by the general public in Portugal due to many years of political campaign by the regime that replace the Estado Novo. The author acknowledges that many people perceive the Portuguese Estado Novo as a fascist regime. However, she highlights that serious scholars and researchers in comparative fascist studies have explored prefered other labels for the regime, such as conservative authoritarian, pseudo-fascist, or para-fascist. In the conclusion section, the author emphasizes that the regime's lack of revolutionary spirit, its adherence to traditionalism and conservatism, and its resistance to the globalizing forces of modernity prevented it from becoming fully fascist. By stating this, Carvalho recognizes that the academic discourse on the nature of the Estado Novo is different from the common understanding among the general public in Portugal. But Wikipedia is built on scholarly opinions and not on common assumptions. Where are your sources?J Pratas (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Sources from both sides were presented in the discussion, again, no need to WP:BLUDGEON this page.

I will concede that she was most likely talking about popular opinion, however her statement about scholars doesn't prove that the Estado Novo not being a fascist is the majority POV. And well, she does stat that the regime carry a mild form of modernization, also the regime was born of the 1926 revolution (or coup), so arguably it did have a revolutionary aspect to it too, certainly not to the extent the regimes in Germany, Italy, or even Spain did, but it was there nonetheless. 2804:248:FBA9:1A00:EDCD:56C0:BD5C:4787 (talk) 07:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I did not notice there had been continued discussion here after my suggestion for an edit in April, so apologies for the late response. My reason for suggesting the change, unaware of past discussions, was that the sources provided did not support the claims of the Estado Novo being totalitarian or fascist. I am sure that a body of literature could be provided that justifies the claim, but it seems very contested. Perhaps a suitable compromise would be to include a section in the article which highlights the ideology of the Estado Novo and the debate over whether it is fascist or not? Horarum (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Status Quo

In 2019, there was an RfC to decide whether the Estado Novo should be labeled "fascist" or not, in the end, the RfC would apply to all articles related to the regime, no consensus was reached: [4]

It was decided then, that the status quo would apply until there is consensus for a change: [5]

The first attempt to remove the label from Wikipedia was on 6 April 2019, the category in this article (which was created on 10 March 2016) was added on 4 November 2017, and was still in the article at the time the dispute began: [6] [7]

So the "fascist" label is the status quo in this article too, JPratas failed at least twice to gain consensus for his proposed changes, so it should be restored unless there is consensus for removing it. -- 2804:29B8:5183:100C:2426:673D:5CA7:6CF5 (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I’d like to offer a perspective on the proposal to reintroduce the "fascist" label in the Estado Novo article, with attention to Wikipedia’s guidelines and editorial history.

Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling and Lack of Consensus: The main argument in favor of reinstating the "fascist" label relies on what is effectively "status quo stonewalling," citing an outdated 2019 version of the article as justification. This approach ignores the fact that Wikipedia content is based on reliable sources and consensus, not on technicalities from past versions. It’s important to note that this IP editor previously, in 2019, also attempted, without success, to add the label in related articles like António de Oliveira Salazar and National Union (Portugal). These efforts were rebuffed by multiple editors, resulting in a consistent stance against the label in related articles. Attempting to force the label solely in Estado Novo, while Salazar and National Union remain without it, creates an inconsistency across articles, which Wikipedia’s WP guideline discourages. Relying on a “status quo” from years ago, when there was never astable consensus for this label, does not meet Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality and stability.

Reliance on Updated Sources and Scholarly Debate: Per WP, applying such a contentious label should be grounded in reliable, reliable sources that support this classification. Recent scholarship on Salazar by historians like Tom Gallagher (2020) and Filipe Ribeiro de Meneses (2021) points to ideological and structural differences that set Estado Novo apart from classical fascism. Gallagher highlights Salazar’s conservative, traditionalist principles—rooted in Catholic social doctrine—contrasting with fascism’s radicalism. Ribeiro de Meneses further underscores the regime’s rejection of mass mobilization and ideological extremism. Given these nuances, reintroducing the label without new, reliable sources risks oversimplifying the debate and contradicting WP

Commitment to Consensus and Avoiding Technicalities: Wikipedia’s WP policy requires a clear, community-supported consensus for contentious labels, especially when those labels have already been removed by multiple editors across articles. A technical argument based on a past “status quo” lacks the substance needed to build consensus. Wikipedia’s content is not meant to hinge on technicalities but rather on reliable sources, editorial consistency, and neutrality. Forcing this label back into the article based solely on an outdated status goes against these principles and risks leading to an inconsistency that has already been rejected by the community in related articles.

In conclusion, maintaining the current, technically stable version of the article—without the "fascist" label and in line with the Salazar and National Union articles best reflects Wikipedia’s commitment to accuracy, stability, and neutrality. The label was originally introduced in 2017 "under the radar" by an IP and went unnoticed, rather than being accepted through any consensus among editors. Reintroducing this label, based on a 2019 version, is Status quo stonewalling and should only happen if it is supported by reliable, updated sources and a clear, recent consensus across related articles. If there is strong interest in revisiting this issue, a new Request for Comment (RfC) could provide a constructive path to establishing a community-backed consensus.J Pratas (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

1. There was an RfC to decide whether the regime should be labeled "fascist" or not, while no consensus was achieved, it was decided that the status quo would remain until there was consensus for removing it. The label was also present in the National Union article at the time. Your attempts to remove the label were contested by many users.

2. Plenty of reliable sources support this classification. Also, Fascism had different characteristic in each country.

3. The user who is proposing changes is the one that needs to get consensus for them, you have repeatedly failed to get consensus for your proposed changes. 2804:29B8:5183:100C:20BE:C01E:C104:55F0 (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I think in this case only a new RfC can solve the issue. For this I also need to stress that "no consensus" does not equate favoring status quo, as stated per WP:SQS. Thus while no consensus was achieved and it was decided that the status quo would remain until there was consensus for removing it are mutually exclusive. It had to either not happen or if it did, it is against the Wikipedia guidelines and shows even more than a new RfC to resolve the issue has to take place. Brat Forelli🦊 01:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I would support it at this point, seems preferable to constant edit warring. Though I also think the text of this article and others related to the Estado Novo have many issues with WP:TONE and WP:BALANCE, some of the text is far too slanted to one side. 2804:29B8:5183:100C:7162:75F2:23A7:196C (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

RFC Should the Estado Novo be considered fascist?

I'm opening a new RfC in an attempt to permanently solve this dispute. Should the Estado Novo regime be considered fascist? -- 2804:29B8:5183:100C:7163:1F92:A81A:7841 (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Yes - Salazar admired Mussolini and modeled policies and institutions after those of Italy. Besides the paramilitary and youth groups, the Estado Novo's corporatism was partially inspired by Mussolini's corporatism, as Marcello Caetano wrote in 1938. The regime's Estatuto do Trabalho Nacional was also inspired by the Carta del Lavoro. -- 2804:29B8:5183:100C:7163:1F92:A81A:7841 (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
• No - I feel it is an oversimplification to lump together all those early 20th century regimes as fascists, it depreciates the concept of fascism itself. Salazar didn't feature much of Nazi/fascist ideology, like the racism, expansionism, ethnic cleansing etc. I think maybe the primary thing to be remembered is that, unlike what bidirectional high-school level thinking teaches us today, fascism was revolutionary, but Salazarism was deeply conservative. FelipeFritschF (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  It’s similar to the statement on the 4 types of economies - Developed, Undeveloped, Japan, and Argentina. Salazar considered his state its own category. 207.96.32.81 (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• No - Salazar was a Catholic Nationalist, and he himself disliked fascism as it had what he perceived to be pagan-ties. This was a one-party state but that is not enough to be fascist. Salazar was respectful of the authority of Rome. Salazar even had a concordat. Banning syndicalists and fascists is a sign he did not associate with them. He wanted to be stood apart as a wholly new statist and not categorized as another fascist.207.96.32.81 (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Salazar stated that "the interests of the Church are only important to me insofar as they coincide with them, and only to that extent: it is the state that is independent and sovereign". 2804:29B8:5183:100C:DC26:99CD:E7A2:D7F0 (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• No - Salazar and Estado Novo should not be considered fascist, as this is what the most prominent books on fascism will tell us. Take Robert O. Paxton and his The Anatomy of Fascism. This is what Paxton writes on page 150: Rejecting fascist expansionism, Portugal remained neutral in World War II and all subsequent conflicts until it decided to fight the Angolan independence movement in 1961. Hoping to spare Portugal the pains of class conflict, Dr. Salazar even opposed the industrial development of his country until the 1960s. His regime was not only nonfascist, but “voluntarily nontotalitarian,” preferring to let those of its citizens who kept out of politics “live by habit.” Similar conclusion is reached by Howard J. Wiarda in Catholic Roots and Democratic Flowers, on page 48: A third designation is “fascist” but that is not quite accurate either: while there were some fascist sympathies and tendencies in both regimes, particularly in the pre–World War II period, in fact both Franco and Salazar took strong action against the real fascists in their countries, and neither regime pursued genocidal policies, dreamed of world conquest, propagated a totalitarian ideology, or developed a full-fledged fascist party.
  An argument was made that Estado Novo is fascist because Salazar admired Mussolini, but this is unfortunately just applying the "guilty by association" logic without seriously analyzing the nature of the Portuguese regime. Argentine President Juan D. Perón also admired Mussolini, yet "most authors, analysing the phenomenon in retrospect agree that the term Fascism does not accurately describe Peronism." In fact, Perón is classified as a left-wing populist by political scientists such as Jorge Castañeda Gutman, Seymour Martin Lipset and Daniel James. Worse yet, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara admired Perón. Why are they not fascist then?
  Ultimately I believe, per Lipset's logic (explained nicely on page 15 of this paper), that Salazar and his regime represented something different than fascism, and this must be acknowledged. There also remains an issue of Marcello Caetano who ruled Estado Novo in its final 6 years, and he presided over "a far more open, more pluralist, more socially just system" compared to Salazar, too (according to Contemporary Portugal: The Revolution and Its Antecedents by Lawrence Graham and Harry Makler), which should open up questions on how one could really consider the entire regime fascist. Brat Forelli🦊 06:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Fascism doesn't need to be expansionistic. Also, the Estado Novo intervened in the Spanish Civil War to depose the Republic, and it made preserving the Portuguese Empire a key priority. Likewise, the fact that Salazar purged some fascists doesn't mean he wasn't a fascist, per this logic Stalin wasn't a communist since he purged many communists, also, some of the National Syndicalists were allowed to join the regime and the National Union. As for Salazar's admiration of Mussolini, its something I thought it noteworthy, but far more important is how the regime modeled its policies after those of Italy.

  One core tenent of fascism is corporatism, and the Estado Novo's corporatism was partially inspired by Italian fascist corporatism, something Marcello Caetano himself wrote:

  "The Italian school undeniably influenced the beginnings of Portuguese corporate politics, as is evident in the Constitution and the National Labor Statute, a diploma that corresponds exactly, by its nature, structure and purposes, to the Italian Carta del Lavoro, of which it even translates some formulas of organization doctrine. Like fascist corporatism, Portuguese corporatism does not allow freedom of association, assigning the functions of representation and professional discipline in each district to a single union authorized by the national union." - [8]

  The Estado Novo also created the "National Foundation for Happiness at Work" (FNAT) which was inspired by the Italian Opera Nazionale Dopolavoro, it also controlled the education system, and created paramilitary and youth groups like the Mocidade Portuguesa and the Legião Portuguesa, that were modeled after those of fascist regimes, etc.

  I think there are enough similarities to consider it fascist. 2804:29B8:5183:100C:8CA:6446:A6BA:A98C (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  I am concerned with the classification of Estado Novo by historians and political scientists and this is what Wikipedia should reflect.

  Ultimately, absence of expansionism is considered an important point for scholars when it comes to Salazarism, and marks a stark difference to Mussolini that you compare him to - hence we do need to consider that. Graham and Makler cite this point: Italian fascism was expansionist and aggressive. Salazarism wanted to maintain a heritage (the colonies) and avoided as much as it could European conflicts. It did not claim sovereignty over new territories and completely missed the dynamism required by economic dominations. It stayed within ancient borders and wanted to be left in peace.

  Likewise Manuel Braga da Cruz also includes that amongst his points: Salazarism lacked the most typical aspects of Fascism, what Schmitter called the "Fascist minimum". Salazarism was not characterized by radical anti-bourgeois or anti-capitalist motivations; there was neither determination of, nor threat to, the bureaucratic apparatus of the State by an armed party; there was more de-mobilization than mobilization; it Salazar did take strong was more a case of condescending obedience action against real than enthusiastic support on the part of Fascists. There was no subordinates; there was a personal and interference with the concentrated leadership, but it was not very apparatus of Government dynamic or charismatic; Salazarism was marked by an armed party. His by nationalist but conservative policies rather regime did not pursue than expansionist ambition.

  Juan José Linz also includes that point, and also argues that Salazarism lacked another key feature of fascism - totalitarianism: While Portugal did not allow completely unrestricted interest group pluralism (liberalism), it did not completely snuff them out (totalitarianism). Salazar did not allow all ideas to compete (liberalism), but neither did he have a totalitarian ideology like fascism; instead he had a "mentality" (discipline, order, conservatism, Catholicism), which he believed in but did not seek to spread by forced indoctrination, as totalitarianism did. Both liberal and totalitarian regimes try to mobilize their populations (the latter by force to participate in politics; Salazar in contrast relied more on apathy, indifference and the de-politicization of the population from earlier frenetic activity.

  So, Philippe Schmitter and his "fascist minimum" that da Cruz relied on, does include expansion ambition amongst fascist properties. So if you say "Fascism doesn't need to be expansionistic", you either cite a minority, or your personal view. Because be it Paxton, da Cruz, Linz or Schmitter, they do include 'expansionism' as something to differentiate Estado Novo from fascism.

  As for Salazar and his suppression of Portuguese fascists, and the analogy you make with Stalin, it would be wise to consider why Salazar suppressed them. Paxton writes: In July 1934, Dr. Salazar actually suppressed an indigenous Portuguese fascist movement, National Syndicalism, accusing it of “exaltation of youth, the cult of force through so-called direct action, the principle of the superiority of state political power in social life, the propensity for organizing the masses behind a political leader”—not a bad description of fascism. Stalin purged fellow communists to consolidate his power and over alleged schemes against him. Salazar purged fascists for, well, fascism.

  I question the claim that "some of the National Syndicalists were allowed to join the regime and the National Union". National Union was a moribund party with no role, why would they join and what would be the relevance of that? While our Wikipedia page already explains the nature of that party, it does not hurt to cite what António Costa Pinto wrote here: The differences between the National Union and any Fascist party are easily recognizable even when, as in Italy, the party became dependent on the State. The non-Fascist nature of Salazar's party has always been used as a point of reference when trying to define the Portuguese regime. The National Union was a creation of Salazar's, established and organized by governmental decree (legislation was passed on the party in the same way as on the administration of the railways) dominated by the administration, put to sleep and reawakened in accordance with the situation at the time. He also adds: Several authors have already mentioned the absence of the role of ideology, propaganda or mobilization of the masses on the part of the National Union which is easily visible from the fact that the party all but disappeared during the thirties.

  As for the analogy of Mussolini's and Salazar's policies, Lawrence Graham and Harry Makler write: There were two Chambers in Italy: Mussolini maintained the Senate; until 1939, he also kept a Chamber of Deputies (Assamblea Nazionale) elected from a single list. In 1939, it was replaced by the Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni. In Portugal there were also two Chambers. But the Corporatist one only played a consultative role, and in the elections for the National Assembly (deputies), the opposition was allowed to concur. Whether one compares the two regimes before or after 1939, the Portuguese regime will appear more or less corporative than the Italian and more democratic—or less authoritarian—all the time. Brat Forelli🦊 11:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Fernando Rosas, which I quoted below, argues that the regime was totalitarian and makes in depth comparisons between the corporatist policies of the Estado Novo and those of other fascist regimes, he even mentions the National Syndicalist influence in some of them. He also mentions the regime's effort to control education and mobilize and indoctrinate the population.

  The decree which banned the National Syndicalist Movement also invited National Syndicalists to join the National Union or it's youth group. De Meneses (who doesn't consider the regime fascist) writes about how more moderate National Syndicalists were integrated in the regime:

  Salazar split the movement with the lure of actual power, reocgnizing the most moderate faction within the organization as the acceptable face of national-syndicalism and granting it space for its own organization and newspaper. Many of Salazar's future collaborators entered the regime at this point, tilting it noticeably to the right in policy and aesthetics.

  ([9]) 2804:29B8:5183:100C:DC26:99CD:E7A2:D7F0 (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Neutral, personally I am against inclusion but we don't have the right to determime this. It should be based on academic sources, and not original research - saying what Estado Novo did or didn't do doesn't matter, only the perscribed label of academics. Polish kurd (talk) 08:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  I suppose, count my vote as no, to balance out the other yes votes. Polish kurd (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• No per Brat, yes arguments are WP:Original research Kowal2701 (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Plenty of sources write about the similarities between the Estado Novo and other fascist regimes. 2804:29B8:5183:100C:DC26:99CD:E7A2:D7F0 (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• No. Recent biographers of Salazar, such as Tom Gallagher (2020) and Filipe Ribeiro de Meneses (2010), have been explicit in their assessment that Salazar and the Estado Novo regime were not fascist. The majority of Portuguese and foreign historians, sociologists, and politologists agree that the Estado Novo, under Salazar's leadership, does not fit the definition of fascism (Torgal 2008). Even Mário Soares, a former Portuguese president and longtime self-described anti-fascist fighter, eventually acknowledged that the Estado Novo was not a fascist regime [[10]].

  Below is a comprehensive and diverse list of reliable sources that argue against categorizing the Estado Novo as a fascist regime:

  1. "The obstacles with twinning the New State with Fascism are self evident: among others one can pick out the lack of mass mobilization, the moderate nature of Portuguese nationalism, the careful and ultimately apolitical selection of the narrow elite who ran the country, the lack of a powerful working-class movement, and the rejection of violence as a means of transforming society. To include Salazar, given his background, his trajectory, his faith, and his general disposition, in the broad fascist 'family', is, at first glance, to stretch fascism to a point where it becomes meaningless."

     — Filipe Ribeiro de Meneses, Salazar: A Political Biography (page 163)

  2. "Portuguese Estado Novo was not Fascist because fascist has always been revolutionary, anticonservative, anti-bourgeois, etc.. something that the Estado Novo never was."

     — A. James Gregor - Phoenix: Fascism in Our Time (New Brunswick, Transaction Publishers, 1999)

  3. "The regime of Salazar where fascism as we characterize it has never taken roots"

     — Juan José Linz [and Authoritarian Regimes - Originally a chapter in the "Handbook of Political Science"]

  4. Where Franco subjected Spain’s fascist party to his personal control, Salazar abolished outright in July 1934 the nearest thing Portugal had to an authentic fascist movement, Rolão Preto’s blue-shirted National Syndicalists. The Portuguese fascists, Salazar complained, were “always feverish, excited and discontented . . . shouting, faced with the impossible: More! More!” Salazar preferred to control his population through such “organic” institutions traditionally powerful in Portugal as the Church....His regime was not only non-fascist, but “voluntarily non-totalitarian,” preferring to let those of its citizens who kept out of politics “live by habit. (page 150)...The Estado Novo of Portugal differed from fascism even more profoundly than Franco’s Spain (pag 270).

     — [|Robert Paxton - THE ANATOMY OF FASCISM. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.]

  5. "Salazar made clear his rejection of fascist pagan cesarism"

     — [Payne - A History of Fascism, 1914–1945]

  6. "It is also important to highlight that in the popular discourse Estado Novo is often referred to as fascism. This label does not always receive support in academic circles because although it is considered to have been an authoritarian regime, Estado Novo did not portray all the characteristics of an ideal type of fascism."

     — [Silva R, Ferreira AS. The Post-Dictatorship Memory Politics in Portugal Which Erased Political Violence from the Collective Memory. Integr Psychol Behav Sci. 2019;53(1):24-43. doi:10.1007/s12124-018-9452-8]

  7. "He was not a fascist, rather an authoritarian conservative. His policies emphasized depoliticization."

     — [|Cook, Bernard - Europe Since 1945: An Encyclopedia, Volume 2 pag 1027]

  8. "Unlike Mussolini or Hitler, throughout his life Salazar shrank from releasing popular energies and he never had the intention to create a party-state. Salazar was against the whole-party concept and in 1930 he created the National Union, a single-party which he marketed as a "non-party", announcing that the National Union would be the antithesis of a political party...While Hitler and Mussolini militarized and fanaticized the masses, Salazar demilitarized the country and depoliticized men."

     — Gallagher, Tom (2020). SALAZAR : the dictator who refused to die. C HURST & CO PUB LTD. pp. 43–44. ISBN 978-1787383883.

  9. "Although some Portuguese historians recognize the existence of a Portuguese fascist regime, researchers in comparative fascist studies usually label the Portuguese New State as a conservative authoritarian, pseudo-fascist, fascistized or para-fascist regime."

     — Rita Alemeida Carvalho [and Architecture in the Portuguese ‘Estado Novo’: Cultural Innovation within a Para-Fascist State (1932–1945)]

  10. "Contrary to what contemporary popular history teaches, Salazar did not share fascist tastes, neither aesthetic nor ethical... Salazar hated turbulence and living with the crowds. He did not appreciate mass choreography, nor did he die of love for the modernist exaltation of mechanical progress."

      — José Luis Andrade [antifascismo de Salazar]

  11. "On the other hand, not having an original party to occupy the State, Salazarism was concerned, essentially with conquering the public administration as it found it, and not with eliminating it or replacing it with the party bureaucracy... Contrary to what was seen in fascism and Nazism, it was not so much the party that invaded and penetrated the State, but the State that created and penetrated the party ... he repudiated the militarization of the regime."

      — [Manuel Braga da. Notas para uma caracterização política do salazarismo. Análise Social: Revista do Instituto de Ciências Sociais da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, v. 18, n. 72-74, p. 773-794, 1982-83.]

  12. "Salazar was not fascist." (Portuguese: "Salazar não era fascista.")

      — Albright, Madeleine ["Salazar não era fascista"]

  13. "Was Salazar a fascist? The answer is, historically, no."

      — Luís Campos e Cunha [e salazarismo]

  14. [Regimes like that of Salazar] "should not be listed as fascist, but considered classic conservative and authoritarian regimes."

      — Renzo De Felice, "Il Fenomeno Fascista", Storia contemporanea, anno X, n° 4/5, Ottobre 1979, p. 624.

  15. "Fundamentally not fascist, although not immune to occasional fascist influences. These were much more traditional regimes and they lacked mass support and mobilization. They included Poland under Pisuldski, Portugal under Salazar..."

      — Stephen J. Lee, The European Dictatorships. 1918-1945, (London: 1988), pp. 18.

  16. "João Medina, after criticizing the 'journalistic facility adopted by some hurried pseudo-historians' who define Salazar's dictatorship as a fascist, defends the thesis that Salazar´s regime should not be considered fascist."

      — [Lucena, Manuel. “Entre Lucidez e Paixão.” Análise Social, vol. 36, no. 160, 2001, pp. 925–938.]

  17. "Almost nothing of what has been written about fascism applies to the Portuguese case (...) the differences between Salazarism and that Italian fascism are more profound than the similarities."

      — Maria Filomena Monica, Educação e Sociedade no Portugal de Salazar (A escola primária salazarista 1926-1939), (Lisboa: 1978), p. 98.

  18. "Furthest from the Italian Fascist model was the institutionalization of the single-party, which was much closer to the situation in Primo de Rivera’s regime in Spain in 1923. Created from above, with limited access to society and governmental decision-making, the UN had an elitist character."

      — Adinolfi, Goffredo & Pinto, António. (2014). Salazar’s ‘New State’: The Paradoxes of Hybridization in the Fascist Era. 10.1057/9781137384416_7.

  It is also important to acknowledge that there is a minority of scholars—primarily Portuguese—have argued otherwise. These perspectives often focus on specific elements of the regime, such as its corporatist structure or authoritarian nature. However, these arguments overlook the profound differences that scholars consistently highlight, such as the lack of mass mobilization, revolutionary zeal, or totalitarian intent. The evidence provided here from an extensive array of reputable international sources makes it clear that bluntly grouping the Estado Novo alongside regimes like Mussolini's Italy misrepresents the nuanced reality of Salazar's government. While the Estado Novo may share some surface similarities with fascist regimes, it fundamentally lacked the core ideological, structural, and mobilizational elements that define fascism.Wikipedia should aim for accuracy and nuance in reflecting scholarly consensus. The overwhelming support for the position that the Estado Novo was not fascist underscores the need to avoid such blunt labeling, which risks conflating distinct regimes and misleading readers. J Pratas (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• No, per the sourcing above and in the article. Some other term(s) such as neo-fascist, populist, far-right, authoritarian, or whathaveyou might be supportable with the sources, but fascist has (in an encyclopedic context) a specific meaning, or rather a constrained range of contextual meanings, and this does not fit within them, despite some "Joe Schmoe on the street" misuse of the word fascism. Part of WP's job is to correct misunderstandings, not help perpetuate and ingrain them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 

• Comment I would like to quote some sources which consider the Estado Novo a fascist regime:

"As a provisional conclusion, at least in its specific contours, we consider the Estado Novo as a "fascist" regime. We can call it a "portuguese-style" fascism, adequate to our own caracteristics as a rural people, with a rural mentality and catholic mindset, of a State that made its colonial Empire its great crusade. But all the symptoms of the Estado Novo approximate the characteristics of a fascist state, naturally different in some aspects more daring in German nazism or even in Italian fascism, just to talk of the classic cases."

- Luis Reis Torgal ([11])

"Even the idea that Salazar's outlook was not fascist because it was based within traditional Catholicism can be questioned. After taking power Salazar was suspicious of the Centro Católico lest it became too powerful or too independent politically. In fact, he transformed it into a cultural, non-political organization that was much easier to control. He told his old friend the Cardinal-Patriach of Lisbon that 'I defend the interests of Portugal and of the state; the interests of the Church are only important to me insofar as they coincide with them, and only to that extent: it is the state that is independent and sovereign'. (quoted in Plinio and Rezola 2007: 363) It is Salazar's corporativist view of the state and the totalitarian practice of his regime that are central to the arguments of those who argue that Salazarism was a form of fascism (e.g. Kayman, 1987; Lucena, 1979; Rosas 1989b and 2001). It does not matter if his supporters did not wear particular uniformed shirts or salute the leader with choreographed gestures. What matters is that Salazar held a view of the state that did not greatly differ from Perto and his Blue Shirts. Salazar presided over a regime which was deeply anti-left-wing and which sought totalitarian control of the state, taking command over the economy, forbidding independent trade unions, controlling he press through the SPN and ruthelessly punishing opponents. Moreover, as Rosas (2001) stresses, Salazar sought tight control over the educational system with the aim of ensuring that the next generation of Portuguese would be subservient to the regime. In our own work, we have suggested that Salazar's regime met a number of basic criteria of fascism" (Marinho & Billing, 2013)"

- Michael Billig, Cristina Marinho - The Politics and Rhetoric of Commemoration, How the Portuguese Parliament Celebrates the 1974 Revolution ([12])

"Precisely, the reality is that, in the historical context of the time, under the effect of the affirmation of Italian fascism, of national-socialism and the <<regimes of order>> in all of Europe as an ineluctable political and ideological alternative to the liberal order and the only barrier to Soviet communism, above all under the tremendous impact of the Spanish Civil War and the proclaimed <<red threat>> not only to the regime, but to the very national sovereignty and to <<western Christian civilization>>, the fascistizing pressure from inside the regime itself, and with some social base, surpassed, in many aspects, the elitist conservative point of view dominant in the oligarchy of the regime, imposing consessions and retreats on them. And, in this situation, against their fears and reservations, a fascistizing dynamic that manifests itself, right away, in the appearance, <<from below>>, of organizations of mobilization and ideological inculcation that the Estado Novo will have to accept, always seeking to control them and subject them to their guardianship. It is the <<social pressure and base politics>> from various groups of the radical right that Luis Nuno Rodrigues detects as <<determinant>> in the appearance of the Portuguese Legion in the summer of 1936. Or the leading initiative from hard and militant core of corporative syndicalism, a good part of which with national-syndicalist origins, in the inauguration, with the decisive support of Pedro Teotónio Pereira, of the National Foundation for Joy in Labor (FNAT), in 1935, marked by the explicit <<Doppolavorista>> influence, and even more, in the organic aspect, of the German Kraft durch Frei and which in many ways, surpassed the initial and modest purposes of Salazar in regards to a <<work>> in the <<valorization of national labor>>. But also in the level of certain sectors of the state, one can verify, in a controversial process matured in the womb of the regime years earlier, but only resolved in 1936, a radical inflexion with a totalizing sense whenit came to the policy of education and the framework of the youth and women. Within the framework of this dynamic, the newly created organizations and the reorientation and reform of already existing ones which proposed to take cars of <<character>>, <<taste>>, <<culture>>, ideals, and the Portuguese in a double sense. On one side, creating or reeducating the elites, but taking this task in an enlarged sense that surpassed largely the simple reproduction of the traditional <<escol>> of the oligarchy. It dealt with forming the syndical elites, the elites of the rural corporative organizations, the primary educators, the new cultural and aristic agents, that is, the framework and orientation of the mass organizations and and the taste and leisure of the masses."

- Fernando Rosas, O salazarismo e o homem novo: ensaio sobre o Estado Novo e a questão do totalitarismo

"By way of conclusion, we state that academic fascism, understood as a general political concept, is the most appropriate category to qualify the academic-military dictatorship of a sovereign type established by Salazar in Portugal, through the Constitution that was in force between 1933 and 1974, and that for himself he reinvidicated the adoption of the political-legal principles underlying the conception of the Estado Novo, originating in fascist Italy and formulated by the also academist and Mussolini's Minister of Justice, Alfredo Rocco. From a strict political point of view, academic fascism is the identitarian and ultra-nationalist, reformist and conservative expression that the idea of ​​Stato nuovo assumed in Portugal. In this sense, its ideological roots are inseparable from the historical conditions and the specific academic trajectory followed by Salazar to rise to the academy of Political Economy and Finance at the Faculty of Law of the University of Coimbra, through which he became a specialist in war economics and exercised his university teaching. While the political archetype of academic fascism actually goes back to the specific historical circumstances in which Portugal participated in the First World War, as well as to the political logic and culture of an anti-liberal, anti-democratic, colonialist, Catholic and corporatist nationalist root, as well as to the language modernist aesthetics that shaped the Decembrist dictatorial experience (1917-1918) established by the military and professor, and later president of the Republic, Sidónio Pais, and which dictated the removal from power of the PRP/Democratic Party of Afonso Costa and the suspension of the 1911 Constitution."

- Jorge Pais de Sousa, o Estado Novo como um Fascismo de Cátedra ([13])

Those are just some of the sources that consider the regime fascist, while there are differences between the Estado Novo and, for example, the regimes of Germany and Italy, upon a closer look, there are clear similarities, the fascist label is appropriate in this case. -- 2804:29B8:5183:100C:F4C0:D862:8091:5069 (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment-The ongoing RfC reflects strong consensus that the Estado Novo was not a fascist regime, with the majority of contributors citing reliable academic sources to support this position. Prominent scholars such as Robert Paxton, Stanley Payne, and Juan José Linz emphasize that the Estado Novo was a conservative, authoritarian regime, fundamentally distinct from fascist systems like Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany. Key differences include Salazar's rejection of mass mobilization, revolutionary zeal, and expansionism—hallmarks of fascism. Instead, the Estado Novo prioritized depoliticization, traditional Catholic values, and political stability, opposing the ideological dynamism and militarism central to fascist regimes.

By contrast, the "Yes" side relies on sources that represent a clear minority and fringe perspective in academic discourse. Fernando Rosas, a former member of the Portuguese Communist Party (PCP) and a founder of the Left Bloc (BE), has consistently framed the Estado Novo as fascist, aligning with ideological narratives rather than the broader scholarly consensus. Similarly, Michael Billig, though respected in his field, is not a historian specializing in comparative fascism or the Estado Novo, and his conclusions lack the rigor and depth of experts like Paxton, Payne, or Linz. These "Yes" arguments often hinge on superficial similarities, such as corporatism or admiration for Mussolini, without addressing the deeper ideological distinctions emphasized by mainstream scholarship.

The Bellamy Salute in the US closely resembled the Nazi salute.

This debate underscores the dangers of conflating surface-level similarities with ideological alignment. For example, the Bellamy Salute used during the Pledge of Allegiance in the United States until December 1942 closely resembled the Nazi salute, yet the two systems were ideologically incomparable. Similarly, institutions or practices in the Estado Novo that mirrored those of fascist regimes do not define its core ideology. Salazar’s suppression of Portuguese fascist movements and his rejection of totalitarianism further distance the Estado Novo from fascism.

Wikipedia's standards require reflecting academic consensus and prioritizing reliable, neutral sources over ideologically motivated or fringe perspectives. The evidence in this RfC overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the Estado Novo, while authoritarian and corporatist, does not meet the criteria to be labeled fascist. Recognizing these distinctions ensures historical accuracy and avoids oversimplification.J Pratas (talk) 09:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Once again you're trying to discredit sources who disagree with your point of view. Your point regarding similarities is laughable too, Corporatism is one of the key tenets of fascism, it is far more important than cosmetic stuff like "mass choreography", in fact, sources that consider the regime fascist tend to actually study the regime in depth, while sources that don't usually focus on cosmetic and superficial features. Salazar integrated National Syndicalists who supported him in his regime, and they influenced his regime's policy too, this is something that even De Meneses says.

You also try to discredit Billing, yet you quote Madeleine Albright, who has no expertise on this subject.

You have no proof that these historians are a "clear minority", you also like to cherrypick and selectively quote sources, and you have been called out in the past for it. This is just typical bad faith behavior coming from you. 2804:29B8:5183:100C:1848:92E8:20F2:436B (talk) 05:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The accusation of bad faith and cherry-picking in this discussion is unfounded and misrepresents the rigor of the sources and arguments presented. Let me address the points raised systematically:

1. Corporatism as a Tenet of Fascism While corporatism is indeed a feature associated with some fascist regimes, it is not sufficient to define a regime as fascist. Leading scholars such as Robert O. Paxton (The Anatomy of Fascism) and Stanley G. Payne (A History of Fascism, 1914–1945) emphasize that corporatism is only one of many elements required to classify a regime as fascist. These scholars also highlight that the Estado Novo lacked critical components of fascism, such as:

• Mass mobilization: The Estado Novo prioritized depoliticization and "living by habit," unlike the mobilized, militarized masses central to fascist regimes.
• Revolutionary intent: Fascism is inherently anti-conservative and seeks radical societal transformation, while Salazar’s Estado Novo was deeply rooted in conservative Catholic values.
• Expansionism: Fascist regimes like those of Mussolini and Hitler pursued territorial and ideological expansion, whereas Salazar maintained Portugal’s colonial holdings but avoided external conflicts or revolutionary ambitions.

Relying solely on corporatism to label the Estado Novo as fascist is reductive and ignores these essential distinctions.

2. On National Syndicalists The integration of some National Syndicalists into the Estado Novo is a fact acknowledged by many historians, including Filipe Ribeiro de Meneses. However, it is misleading to suggest that this alone proves the regime was fascist:

• Salazar suppressed the broader National Syndicalist movement in 1934, accusing it of embodying "fascist characteristics" such as the exaltation of youth and the cult of force.
• Additionally, José Carlos Rates, the founder of the Portuguese Communist Party, also integrated into the Estado Novo and joined the National Union, yet this did not make the regime communist.
• Similarly, hundreds of monarchists served the Estado Novo, but this did not transform the regime into a monarchy.
• The Estado Novo pursued a strategy of integrating individuals from various political backgrounds who were willing to collaborate with the regime, as long as they did not oppose it.

These examples reinforce the idea that the inclusion of certain individuals or groups does not define the ideology or nature of the regime itself.

3. Critique of Michael Billig Michael Billig is a respected scholar in social psychology and rhetoric, but he is not a historian specializing in fascism, Portuguese history, or the Estado Novo. His contributions to the study of nationalism and ideology are valuable but not authoritative in this specific debate. In contrast: Scholars such as Paxton, Payne, Linz, and Tom Gallagher have specialized expertise and are widely recognized in fascist studies or Portuguese history. Billig’s occasional commentary on fascism does not carry the same weight as these foundational texts. This is not an attempt to "discredit" Billig but to appropriately contextualize his expertise relative to the topic at hand.

4. On Madeleine Albright Madeleine Albright’s qualifications as a diplomat and academic are impressive, particularly her PhD from Columbia University and her role as a professor at Georgetown University and author. Her book Fascism: A Warning provides a thoughtful analysis of the resurgence of authoritarian tendencies and how historical fascism informs contemporary politics. However, there are important nuances to consider regarding her suitability as a source for discussions about the Estado Novo. The mention of Madeleine Albright is supplementary, not central to the argument. While her book Fascism: A Warning offers insights into authoritarianism, it is not cited as a key authority on the Estado Novo. The focus remains on the established academic consensus from experts like Paxton, Payne, and Linz.

5. Proof of Minority Status There is overwhelming evidence that the position equating the Estado Novo with fascism represents a minority viewpoint: The works of Paxton, Payne, Linz, and others consistently differentiate the Estado Novo from fascist regimes. Prominent Portuguese and international scholars, including Filipe Ribeiro de Meneses and António Costa Pinto, describe the Estado Novo as conservative and authoritarian but distinct from fascism. Meta-analyses of fascist studies consistently prioritize the absence of mass mobilization, revolutionary intent, and expansionism as defining characteristics that exclude the Estado Novo from being classified as fascist.

6. Cherry-Picking Accusation Far from cherry-picking, the "No" side has cited a diverse and authoritative range of sources representing mainstream academic consensus. Citation counts on platforms like Google Scholar demonstrate the relative scholarly impact of the sources cited:

• Juan José Linz, Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes, has been cited 4,440 times, making it one of the most influential works in the field of political science. Linz categorizes the Estado Novo as authoritarian-conservative, not fascist, emphasizing its depoliticization and conservative values.
• Stanley Payne, A History of Fascism, 1914–1945, has been cited 1,585 times. Payne systematically distinguishes Salazar’s regime from fascism, focusing on its conservative and non-revolutionary nature.
• Robert Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism, is cited over 1,890 times, providing foundational criteria that the Estado Novo does not meet.
• In contrast, Fernando Rosas’s works cited 432 times or Jorge Pais de Sousa’s O Estado Novo de Salazar como um Fascismo de Cátedra, cited only11 times, represent niche perspectives with limited academic impact.

These citation counts reflect the scholarly impact and widespread acceptance of the "No" side’s sources in contrast to the selective and less influential sources cited by the "Yes" side.

Conclusion The scholarly impact of the sources used by the "No" side decisively rebuts accusations of cherry-picking. By relying on authoritative and widely recognized academic works, the "No" side reflects the mainstream consensus in the academia, whereas the "Yes" side represents a minority perspective grounded in less impactful and ideologically framed sources. This disparity in academic rigor underscores the robustness of the "No" argument and the integrity of its methodology.J Pratas (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• negative I vote "no" and agree with JPratas. Rjensen (talk) 02:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

1. Corporatism is one of the key tenets of fascism, not just a "feature associated with some fascist regimes", true, while it is not the only key tenet, the fact that the Estado Novo's corporatism was heavily influenced (as Marcello Caetano admitted) is a strong argument for the fascist label. The regime also tried to control education and promote its ideology, and created youth and paramilitary groups for this goal. It also intervened in the Spanish Civil War to depose the Republic.

2. Also true, but those National Syndicalists helped shape regime policy and pushed it into a more fascist direction, especially its corporatist one, did those communists or monarchists who integrated the regime push the regime into a more left-wing direction or helped to restore the monarchy? No, so that's another argument for the fascist label.

3. You just lumped her together with other sources, and she is not the only source with no expertise on this subject that you cite either. At the same time, you try to discredit far more reliable and better sources because they don't share your point of view. Just more bad faith behavior on your part.

4. There is no "overwhelming evidence" whatsoever of this claim.

5. I didn't accuse the "No" side as a whole of cherry-picking, just you. When you quote a source, you like to ignore parts that don't support your point of view, and you have been called out for this before. You also made a lot of biased edits to articles related to the Estado Novo, which clearly influenced a lot of the "no" votes, these articles really need an overhaul. Just to cite an example of this:

The corporatist state had some similarities to Benito Mussolini's Italian fascism, but considerable differences in its moral approach to governing. Although Salazar admired Mussolini and was influenced by his Labour Charter of 1927, Salazar distanced himself from fascist dictatorship, which he considered a pagan Caesarist political system that recognized neither legal nor moral limits.

The phrase "considerable differences in its moral approach to governing" is written as if it is some statement of fact. It really looks like it is pushing a POV. 2804:29B8:5183:100C:DDD0:A82B:C759:3E1D (talk) 04:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)